Re: The Case Against [FOR] Apple - Hush-A-Phone revisited

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Frankston" <bob2-39 () Bobf Frankston com>
Date: August 10, 2009 10:51:56 AM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Cc: "'Nic Pottier'" <nicpottier () gmail com>, "'Miles Fidelman'" <mfidelman () meetinghouse net 
>
Subject: RE: [IP] The Case Against [FOR] Apple - Hush-A-Phone revisited

There are some reasons for and against Apple but it is worth respond  
to some of claims. This is Hush-a-phone redux – it took the Supreme  
Court to tell ATT to stop preventing their users from putting a box  
around a phone lest it besmirch their reputation. It seems that  
paternalism is still very strong… and convenient.

Some more comments

1.       Choice of carrier. Putting aside the practice of having to  
choose who will own your ability to communicate it was not necessary  
to go with ATT in order to get international roaming.
a.       Verizon does offer CDMA/GSM phones.
b.      More important for travelers is the ability to unlock the  
phones. I have an ATT phone which I did unlock and used other SIM  
cards when traveling. There was no need to treat the iPhone  
differently – that is just a business decision.
c.       Verizon does allow switching ESNs online – the equivalent of  
switching SIMs. But just because you have a SIM doesn’t mean you can  
switch them – they and (as noted) the phones can be and are locked  
down thus mooting the value of a SIM cards.
2.       “Apple required special integration with the carrier for  
their voicemail system,” – why? They could have implemented voice mail  
as a service outside the network. They made the decisions for business  
reasons and time to market but it isn’t a necessary decision.
3.       “First off, one has to realize that Apple is vastly more open  
and provides far more opportunity to individual developers than any  
other platform. “ Huh? I’ve long been able to develop apps for Windows  
phones – why the claim that Apple is more open.  Apple has done a  
better job of packaging and usability but that’s not the same as “more  
open”. Same for other platforms – what Apples bring is reduced control  
courtesy their veto power. Google makes the store and option not a  
requirement.
4.       “As for why they insist on the control they do, it is simply  
because they are trying to appeal to the average consumer and give  
them a great experience.” – I find this most troubling and  
infantilizing. It’s one thing for Apple to suggest a standard but for  
them to decide that my experience should be limited to the meanest  
intelligence is offensive at best and sufficient reason to stand clear  
of the platform. If you can’t do harm you can’t do good and if you  
can’t even offend …
5.       Preventing background apps – c’mon – I am protected from  
attempting to walk and chew gum at the same time? Why not just buy a  
Jitterbug which prevents all the annoying applications other than the  
one intended purpose? Why make me suffer so your mother won’t be  
confused – or would she be? Being a mother doesn’t necessarily mean  
you can’t use technology. How insulting. One could provide a “no  
background” option. One could defend this limitation as a technical  
decision – porting OS/x to a tiny machine required compromises but  
don’t tell me it’s for my own good.

Of course this is all a side issue. The real point is why do we have a  
cellular system that requires you choose a carrier? Skype has shown  
that we don’t need a network to maintain the call state and that the  
purpose of redundant expensive towers is primarily for billing. If we  
simply had common IP (or post-IP) wired or wireless we could do far  
better with far more choice at a very small fraction of the cost while  
increasing our safety and availability. The iPhone is just a symptom  
and not the root of the problem. In fact the iPhone has been a very  
positive force in demonstrating what is possible and we should applaud  
Apple for that even as we challenge their neo-Bell practices.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 05:01
To: ip
Subject: [IP] The Case Against [FOR] Apple



Begin forwarded message:

From: Nic Pottier <nicpottier () gmail com>
Date: August 10, 2009 2:51:41 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] The Case Against Apple

.. for ip if you wish..

Let me respond on a few of these points, though I do agree on the
browser and Google voice fronts.

> 1. Destroying MP3 player innovation through anti-competitive  
practices

This somehow tries to make the argument that iPod's are the most
popular music player because of iTunes, and that because iTunes is
mostly locked down other players can't get a foothold?  Perhaps the
author has been on the Apple bandwagon too long to realize this, but
we still live in a world that is vastly dominated by Windows, where
iTunes is hardly standard.

You might argue that iTunes is the most popular music manager because
of the iPod, but arguing the reverse makes no sense.

> 2. Monopolistic practices in telecommunications

First off, I don't think monopoly means what the author thinks it
means, but I'll leave that as an aside.  Apple's pick of AT&T as their
original carrier was fairly obvious.  It is clear they wanted to make
a world phone, which left only AT&T and T-Mobile as potential US
carriers.  And from there AT&T is the obvious choice as T-Mobile was
vastly behind on a 3G roll out.  Apple required special integration
with the carrier for their voicemail system, so going with a single
one makes a lot of sense.  As for why they are STILL only on AT&T, I
imagine it has more to do with AT&T paying them bucketloads of money
than anything else.

The two sim idea doesn't make any sense.  One because Verizon doesn't
even use SIMs being a CDMA carrier and two because consumers don't
want to have pay for two plans for a single phone.  Yes, the Jason
Chen's of the world might use something like that, but Apple is (and
always has) built for the consumer, not the uber geek.

PS.  If you think being 'locked' into AT&T is bad, imagine being on
Verizon where the phone doesn't have a SIM card to speak of.  At least
SIM unlocking / hacking (and overseas use) is an option on the iPhone
for the courageous.  Let's see you use your Pre overseas.

> 3. Draconian App Store policies that are, frankly, insulting

This is the point I really wanted to address, because I see it
mentioned so much and people don't seem to understand the realities.
As an iPhone developer that has worked on other smart phone platforms
I feel I can speak fairly intelligently to it.

First off, one has to realize that Apple is vastly more open and
provides far more opportunity to individual developers than any other
platform.  Although they weren't the first to have an on device app
store, they are the first really popular phone to have one, and the
first to exercise very little control over the content of said store.
Yes, a few things are off limits, but name me another platform that
has near the number of apps.

As for why they insist on the control they do, it is simply because
they are trying to appeal to the average consumer and give them a
great experience.  If you've used a Windows Mobile phone then you know
that managing the before long you do start having to manage the
individual apps that are eating your ram or cpu.  Apple has been
rather smart in the implementation of their OS to make it work day in
and day out for the average Joe without them having to worry about
such things, it just works.

Would being able to run background apps be great?  Absolutely, but it
has very real implications on how their platform is viewed as a whole.
If you look at the quality of the apps in the store, the vast vast
majority are horrible.  Cobbled together and with very little QA.  If
suddenly apps would run in the background, then your mom would be
complaining about how crappy her iPhone is because the free Puppy
Backgrounds application is eating all her CPU.

Personally, as a developer, I do wish Apple offered a paid QA route
that would allow background apps.  Say pay $100 (or $1000) per QA
round to have someone REALLY test the app for behaving when in the
background. (no growing of memory, no overuse of the radio or cpu)
Even then I think it would be risky for them, that type of testing is
incredibly difficult to do with certainty, but it would be a step in
the right direction.

(as an aside I think Apple should actually raise their QA (and
quality) bar a good deal and charge per QA round to help with the
quality issues in the App store)

Lastly on the pr0n front, this isn't about being draconian, it is
about them wanting to preserve a very safe image as a consumer
company.  And for that I applaud them, because the short sighted
accountant would say that they are leaving a ton of money on the table
by not doing adult content without seeing that their pure image is
worth far more.

-Nic Pottier

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Farber<dave () farber net> wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Joly MacFie <joly () punkcast com>
> Date: August 9, 2009 6:04:38 PM EDT
> To: dave <dave () farber net>
> Subject: The Case Against Apple
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-case-against-apple-2009-8
>
> The Case Against Apple
> Jason Calacanis|Aug. 8, 2009, 6:59 PM
>
>
> Reprinted with permission from Jason Calacanis, CEO of Mahalo.com and
> co-founder of the TechCrunch50.com conference taking place on
> September 14-15th in San Francisco.
>
> About six years and $20,000 ago, I made the switch to Apple products
> after a 20-year love affair with Microsoft. That love affair started
> with the humble PCjr and ended with an IBM ThinkPad. From DOS to the
> first version of Windows (the run-time version that only loaded one
> program), and on to Windows 95 and XP, I dealt with the viruses,
> driver incompatibilities and other assorted quirks of Microsoft's
> wildly open ecosystem.
>
> It sucked to have to buy anti-virus software and reinstall Windows
> every 12 months, so moving to Apple's rock-solid and virus-free OS
> was, in a word, delightful.
>
> Sure, everything on the Mac platform costs twice as much, but
> considering the fact that my entire career centers around a desktop
> connected to the Internet, it really doesn't matter if I spend $2 a
> day or $20 a day for my hardware. I replace everything at about a
> two-year pace (i.e. phone, MP3 player, desktop and laptop). So, at  
$10
> a day, what some folks spend on Starbucks, I have a two year budget  
of
> $7,500 for my gear. In fact, the only things I don't replace every  
two
> years are my 30" and 24" Dell Monitors, which I tend to keep for five
> years.
>
> Over the last 12-18 months, my love affair with Apple has waned.  
Steve
> Jobs' peculiar, rigidly closed, and severe worldview have started to
> cramp my style. It's not entirely Steve's fault, as Apple's style and
> grace are a large part of what drew me to the platform initially. My
> collection of Mac products now includes seven iPods ($1,500), four  
Mac
> laptops ($8,000), two Airports ($500), a Time Capsule ($500), two Mac
> towers ($4,000), a Mac Mini ($600), two iMacs ($4,000) and all three
> iPhones ($1,500).
>
> The cost of these items is just over $20,000, or about $3,300 a year.
> That's almost exactly $10 a day--what I budget for technology in my
> life. Half of that is personal, half of that is probably business.
> While I know I am a high-end consumer, since I do this for a  
living, I
> think there are many folks putting $5-10 a day toward hardware.
> Blogger Robert Scoble of RackSpace must spend $20 a day and Leo
> Laporte of This Week in Tech must spend $40 a day!
>
> Key Point 1: For the past six years, if Steve makes something, I buy
> it. Sometimes, I buy two (one for my wife).
>
> Key Point 2: I over-pay for Apple products because I perceive them to
> be better (i.e. Windows-based hardware is 30-50% less--but at 38  
years
> old I don't care).
>
>
> The Love Affair Ends
> ===================
> Steve's a great guy, and the love affair has been wonderful, but I'm
> starting to look past him and back to Microsoft for a more healthy
> relationship that is less--wait for it--anti-competitive in nature.
>
> Years and years after Microsoft's antitrust headlines, Apple is now
> the anti-competitive monster that Jobs rallied us against in the
> infamous 1984 commercial. Steve Jobs is the oppressive man on the
> jumbotron and the Olympian carrying the hammer is the open-source
> movement
>
> For folks in the tech industry, this is not a new discussion. Another
> radical visionary, Steve Gillmor, has been hosting this discussion
> since Apple's draconian iTunes updates led smart people to  
*downgrade*
> their software. Think about that mind bomb for a second: people
> downgrading their software to maintain their freedoms--is this a
> William Gibson novel?
>
> Steve Jobs is on the cusp of devolving from the visionary radical we
> all love to a sad, old hypocrite and control freak--a sellout of epic
> proportions.*
>
> [ * Important Note: I've written this piece three times over the past
> year and never released it. It felt like releasing something like  
this
> about a personal hero when they were, according to all counts, dying,
> was too harsh. With Steve back to work and healthy for what will
> probably be his last five to ten years of full-time work (based on
> when most folks retire), I feel obligated to let this out. I know  
many
> folks in the industry are saddened to see our LSD-taking, radical
> free-thinking and fight the power hero, turning to the Dark Side.  
This
> note is written from a place of admiration and love.   ]
>
>
> The Case, The Five Parts
> ===================
> I'd like to discuss four major issues around Apple's current product
> line that I believe are stifling the industry, consumer choice and
> pricing. Instead of just giving a simple solution to the problem, I
> thought long and hard about the opportunities for Apple to be less
> controlling and more open. For example, if the iPhone was available  
on
> more carriers, Apple would sell many, many more units, which would
> inevitably lead to people switching from Windows desktops to Macs
> (which is what happened with the iPod).
>
> Bottom line: Of all the companies in the United States that could
> possibly be considered for anti-trust action, Apple is the lead
> candidate. The US Government, however, seems to be obsessed with
> Microsoft for legacy reasons and Google for privacy reasons.
>
> The truth is, Google has absolutely no lock-in, collusion or choice
> issues like Apple's, and the Internet taught Microsoft long ago that
> open is better than closed.
>
> Let's look at the case against, and the opportunities for, Apple:
>
>
> 1. Destroying MP3 player innovation through anti-competitive  
practices
> --------------------------
> There is no technical reason why the iTunes ecosystem shouldn't allow
> the ability to sync with any MP3 player (in fact, iTunes did support
> other players once upon a time), save furthering Apple's dominance
> with their own over-priced players. Quickly answer the following
> question: who are the number two and three MP3 players in the market?
> Exactly. Most folks can't name one, let alone two, brands of MP3
> players.
>
> On my trips to Japan, China and Korea over the past couple of  
years, I
> made it a point to visit the consumer electronics marketplaces like
> Akihabira. They are filled with not dozens, but hundreds, of MP3
> players. They are cheap, feature-rich and open in nature. They have  
TV
> tuners, high-end audio recorders, radio tuners, dual-headphone jacks
> built-in and any number of innovations that the iPod does not. You
> simply will not see those here because of Apple's inexcusable lack of
> openness.
>
> Not only does Apple not build in a simple API to attach devices to
> iTunes, they actually fight technically and legally block people from
> building tools to make iTunes more compatible.
>
> Think for a moment about what your reaction would be if Microsoft  
made
> the Zune the only MP3 player compatible with Windows. There would be
> 4chan riots, denial of service attacks and Digg's front page would be
> plastered with pundit editorials claiming Bill Gates and Steve  
Ballmer
> were Borg.
>
> Why, then, does Steve Jobs get a pass?
>
> Steve Jobs gets a pass because we are all enabling him to be a jerk.
> We buy the products and we say nothing when our rights are stripped
> away. We've been seduced by Steve Jobs: he lifts another shiny object
> over his head with a new eco-friendly feature and we all melt like
> screaming schoolgirls at Shea Stadium in '65.
>
> Simple solution and opportunity: An iTunes API which allows the
> attachment of any mass storage device,not just a short list of  
players
> that jumped through Apple's hoops. If need be, perhaps consumers  
pay a
> simple licensing fee of $1-5 a unit to attach a non-Apple MP3 player
> to iTunes (i.e. pure profit for Apple).
>
>
> 2. Monopolistic practices in telecommunications
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Apple's iPhone is a revolutionary product that has devolved almost  
all
> of the progress made in cracking--wait for it--AT&T's monoply in the
> '70s and '80s. We broke up the Bell Phone only to have it put back
> together by the iPhone. Telecommunications choice is gone for Apple
> users. If you buy an Apple and want to have a seemless experience  
with
> your iPhone, you must get in bed with AT&T, and as we like to say in
> the technology space, "AT&T is the suck."
>
> Simple solution and opportunity: Not only let the iPhone work on any
> carrier, but put *two* SIM card slots on the iPhone and let users set
> which applications use which services. (Your phone could be Verizon
> and your browser Sprint!) Imagine having two SIM cards with 3G that
> were able to bond together to perform superfast uploads and downloads
> to YouTube.
>
>
> 3. Draconian App Store policies that are, frankly, insulting
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Like lemmings, we fell for your bar charts extolling the openness of
> the iPhone App platform and its massive array of applications. We
> over-paid for your phone--which you render obsolete every 13 months,
> like clockwork--and then signed our lives away to AT&T. The way you
> pay us back is by becoming the thought police, deciding what
> applications we can consume on the device we over-paid for!
>
> Yes, every application on the phone has to approved by Apple, and if
> you were interested in something adult in nature...well...you can't  
do
> that.
>
> Apple's justification for this nonsense is that they have to protect
> AT&T's network. Oh really? Aren't there dozens and dozen of open
> phones on everyone's network? The network hasn't crashed yet, and  
even
> if someone did create a malicious iPhone application, you would know
> EXACTLY who was running the application and be able to block and/or
> turn off their phone. The network was MADE to deal with these issues
> on a NETWORK level. To say you have to control people down to the
> application level defies all logic. A second year CS student
> understands this.
>
> Who in their right mind feels the need to control the
> application-level anyway? It's absurd.
>
> Imagine for a moment if every application on Windows Mobile or  
Windows
> XP had to be approved by Microsoft--how would you react? Exactly.  
Once
> again we've enabled Steve Jobs' insane control freak tendencies. This
> relationship is beyond disfunctional--we are co-dependent.
>
> Simple solution: Apple could have a basic system setting that says
> "Allow Non-Approved Applications." When you click this setting, a
> popup could come on warning that, if you click this setting, you are
> waiving your previously-understood customer service arrangement (i.e.
> only people with approved applications can hand over their money at
> the Genius bar).
>
>
> 4. Being a horrible hypocrite by banning other browsers on the iPhone
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Opera is a fantastic browser built by a company in Oslo, Norway. In
> fact, a decade ago, I had a speaking gig there and got to interview
> the CEO of the company for Silicon Alley Reporter. (Sidebar: Man,  
do I
> miss being a journalist. I wish I could split 50% of my time being a
> journalist and 50% of my time being a CEO.) For over a decade, Opera
> has been making lighting-fast, lightweight and quirky browsers. Long
> before Apple launched Safari, with the goal of designing the fastest
> browswer on the Web, Opera was already there.
>
> Opera's mobile browsers are "full of WIN," as the kids like to say
> these days. If you're a Windows Mobile or Blackberry user, you've
> probably downloaded them and enjoyed their WINness. The company
> started an iPhone browser project but gave up when faced with Apple's
> absurd and unclear mandate to developers: Don't create services which
> duplicate the functionality of Apple's own software. In other words:
> "Don't compete with us or we will not let you in the game."
>
> The irony of this is not lost on anyone who had a computer before  
they
> had an Internet connection. Apple was more than willing to pile on
> after Microsoft's disasterous inclusion of Internet Explorer with
> Windows. In fact, what Apple is doing is 100x worse than what
> Microsoft did. You see, Microsoft simply included their browser in
> Windows, still allowing other browsers to be installed. In Apple's
> case, they are not only bundling their browser with the iPhone, but
> they are BLOCKING other browsers from being installed.
>
> Simple solution and opportunity: Don't be a control freak and
> hypocrite. Allow people to pick their browser; the competition to  
make
> a better browser will increase the overall use of iPhones and mobile
> data services.
>
>
>
> 5. Blocking the Google Voice Application on the iPhone
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Apple took Google's innovative and absurdly priced phone offering,
> Google Voice, out of the App Store and is currently being  
investigated
> by the FCC for this action. This point is similar to the browser
> issue, in that Apple wants to own almost every extension of the  
iPhone
> platform. How long before Apple decides to ban a Twitter client in
> favor of an Apple Twitter-like product? Seems crazy, I know, but by
> following Apple's logic you should not be able to use Firefox or
> Google Chrome on your desktop.
>
> Simple solution and opportunity: Let people have three or four phone
> services coming in to their iPhones and perhaps charge a modest
> licensing fee for those types of service. Or, just simply stop being
> jerks and let the free market decide how to use the data services
> they've BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. That's the joke of this: you're paying
> for the data services that Apple is blocking. You pay for the
> bandwidth and Apple doesn't let you use it because, you know, they
> know better than you how you should consume your data minutes.
>
>
> In Summary
> --------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a huge fan of government involvement in business, so I would
> rather see Apple resolve these issues for themselves.
>
> In fact, I believe many forces are already at work, with Michael
> Arrington of TechCrunch and Peter Rojas of GDGT.com (and founder of
> Engadget) coming out publicly against these very issues. Neither of
> these two individuals will use an iPhone *specifically* because it is
> incompatible with their lives.
>
> Apple will face a user revolt in the coming years based upon
> Microsoft, Google and other yet-to-be-formed companies, undercutting
> their core markets with cheap, stable and open devices. Apple's
> legendary comeback ability will be for naught if they don't deeply
> examine their anti-competitive nature.
>
> Making great products does not absolve you from technology's cardinal
> rule: Don't be evil.
>
> It also doesn't save you from Scarface's cardinal rule: Never get  
high
> on your own supply.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Do you think Apple would be more, or less, successful if they
> adopted a more open strategy (i.e. allowing other MP3 players in
> iTunes)?
>
> 2. Do you think Apple should face serious antitrust action?
>
> 3. Do you think Apple's dexterity and competence forgive their bad
> behavior?
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com